Citation Nr: 1105108
Decision Date: 02/08/11 Archive Date: 02/18/11
DOCKET NO. 07-12 713 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas
THE ISSUES
1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen
a service connection claim for myopia and presbyopia.
2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen
a service connection claim for umbilical hernia.
3. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen
a service connection claim for external otitis.
4. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen
a service connection claim for right and left molar extractions.
5. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen
a service connection claim for bronchitis.
6. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen
a service connection claim for pain due vasectomy.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans (DAV)
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Sarah Richmond, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The Veteran had active military service from January 1977 to
January 1998.
This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from
an April 2006 rating decision by the above Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which denied the request to
reopen the above service connection claims.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In January 2011, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the
appeal, the Veteran's representative submitted a motion to
dismiss, to which was attached a written request from the Veteran
requesting withdrawal of the appeal for the claims to reopen
service connection for myopia and presbyopia, umbilical hernia,
external otitis, right and left molar extractions, bronchitis,
and pain due vasectomy.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the
Veteran on the issue of whether new and material evidence has
been received to reopen a service connection claim for myopia and
presbyopia have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (West
2002 & Supp. 2010); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2010).
2. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the
Veteran on the issue of whether new and material evidence has
been received to reopen a service connection claim for umbilical
hernia have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (West 2002
& Supp. 2010); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2010).
3. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the
Veteran on the issue of whether new and material evidence has
been received to reopen a service connection claim for external
otitis have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (West 2002
& Supp. 2010); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2010).
4. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the
Veteran on the issue of whether new and material evidence has
been received to reopen a service connection claim for right and
left molar extractions have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(b)(2),
(d)(5) (West 2002 & Supp. 2010); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204
(2010).
5. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the
Veteran on the issue of whether new and material evidence has
been received to reopen a service connection claim for bronchitis
have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (West 2002 &
Supp. 2010); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2010).
6. The criteria for withdrawal of a substantive appeal by the
Veteran on the issue of whether new and material evidence has
been received to reopen a service connection claim for pain due
vasectomy have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5) (West
2002 & Supp. 2010); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204 (2010).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal that
fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the
determination being appealed. A substantive appeal may be
withdrawn in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a
decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204(b) (2010). Withdrawal may
be made by the appellant or by his authorized representative. 38
C.F.R. § 20.204(c) (2010).
During the course of the current appeal, the Veteran requested a
videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. A hearing
was scheduled for him at the RO's Satellite Office in San
Antonio, Texas, on January 31, 2011. However, in November 2010,
he executed a VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, in
which he indicated he wished to withdraw all the issues on
appeal. In a second Form 21-4138, he withdrew his request for a
hearing. Those documents were received by the RO on November 29,
2010, and were forwarded to the Board, where they were date-
stamped as received on January 10, 2011, and referred to the
Veteran's accredited representative, DAV.
On January 11, 2011, the Acting Director, Office of Management,
Planning, and Analysis, wrote a letter to the Veteran to
acknowledge receipt of his appeal at the Board, and indicated
that the appeal had been docketed.
The Veteran's representative prepared a Motion to Dismiss
Appeal dated on January 13, 2011, and filed it with the Board,
with the Veteran's aforementioned communications attached.
Because the Veteran has withdrawn his appeal as to the above
issues, there remain no allegations of error of fact or law for
appellate consideration on those issues, and he Board does not
have further jurisdiction.
ORDER
The appeal with respect to the claims to reopen service
connection for myopia and presbyopia, umbilical hernia, external
otitis, right and left molar extractions, bronchitis, and pain
due vasectomy is dismissed.
___________________________
ANDREW J. MULLEN
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Department of Veterans Affairs